Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs DCIT The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses on the ground that the payment was made prior to commencement of the hospitality business and had resulted into acquisition of technical know-how and franchise from the professional consultants and hence was capital in nature.
CIT Vs ABC Bearing Limited (Bombay High Court)- The taxpayer was engaged in the business of advancing loans. Interest received from inter-corporate deposits was offered to tax as business income and accepted by the Assessing Officer in earlier years.
A reading of the provisions of section 80-IA(10) shows that when business transaction is so arranged that it produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits, which might be accepted to arise in such eligible business, then the Assessing Officer is empowered to restrict the allowance of deduction under section 80-IA to the amount of profit, which might reasonably be deemed to have been derived from the normal business transactions.
V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI (P & H HC)- The date of receipt of notice by the addressee is not relevant to determine, as to whether the notice has been issued within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression serve means the date of issue of notice. The date of receipt of notice cannot be left to be undetermined dependent upon the will of the addressee. Therefore, to bring certainly and to avoid attempts of the addressee to evade the process of receipt of notice, the purpose of the statute will be better served, if the date of issue of notice is considered as compliance of the requirement of proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact that is the only conclusion that can be arrived at to the expression ‘serve’ appearing in Section 143(2) of the Act.
DCIT v. Bank of America NT & SA (ITAT Mumbai) – Tribunal held that interest received on income tax refund can be set-off against the interest paid on delayed payment of income tax and only net amount is to be taxed. The issue before the tribunal was that Whether interest income received by the taxpayer on income tax refund can be set-off against delayed payment on income tax? Whether the taxpayer can offer the net interest received as income?
The Tata Power Company Limited Vs ACIT- The Tribunal reiterated that the incidence of liability to pay DDT arises the moment such dividend is distributed (declared) and any subsequent events can have no bearing on such liability, even if such event renders dividend non-taxable in the hands of the recipient. It was not possible to extend the same analogy laid down by the cases cited pertaining to tax-ability of dividend in the hands of shareholder to a case of refund of DDT already paid by the Company declaring dividend.
SC refers Appeal by Ram Jethmalani against purported inaction of Government to arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by Indian citizens in foreign banks to Honourable the Chief Justice of India.
On the date of filing of the present application before us relating to the rights and obligations arising out of the contract dated 10.5.2006 entered into by the applicant, in so far as it relates to the question posed in this application, was pending before the concerned assessing officer. We re-emphasize that merely because a questionnaire in general terms is served or a questionnaire raising specific issues is served as a further step towards completing the assessment, cannot lead to the position that the question sought to be raised before us is not pending before the assessing officer when the return of income is filed. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allowing of this application under section 245 R(2) of the Act for giving a ruling under section 245R(4) of the Act is barred by virtue of the proviso to section 245R (2) of the Act. The application is, therefore, rejected.
In the dictionary clause in Section 65(90A), while defining renting of immovable property, it has been stated that it includes renting, letting, leasing, licencing or other similar arrangements for immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce.
Maa Vaishno Devi Ginning Pressing Udhyog Dhamnod Vs. DCIT (ITAT Indore) – No evidence was either found during survey or explained by the assessee which could establish that the surrendered income was earned from industrial undertaking. There is a uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that no purchase bills, sale bills, ginning charges bills, pressing charges bills were found during survey operation which remained to be recorded in regular course of business of industrial undertaking, therefore, there is no basis for claiming the surrendered income to be generated from/derived from the industrial undertaking. There is further finding that no entry tax, sales-tax, other taxes were found paid by the assessee on such unrecorded transactions, therefore, the onus is clearly on the assessee to substantiate its claim which has not been discharged.
